get_robot_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing return ordering (by DOF index), joint type categories, and units (degrees/meters). It doesn't cover error behavior or invalid prim_path cases, but it provides meaningful detail beyond a simple IT-getters statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loads the tool's purpose, provides the usage sequencing, and gives concrete return details. The Args block is clean, and every sentence contributes value with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple getter, the description is mostly complete: output schema covers return structure, and the description supplies ordering, units, and call context. It could be improved by explicitly differentiating from get_joint_config and mentioning the optional parameters, but it's sufficient for basic correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains the required prim_path parameter, but only as 'The prim path of the robot,' adding little beyond the schema title. With 0% schema description coverage, the optional command_id and idempotency_key remain undocumented, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves robot joint information (names, DOF count, joint types, limits) with a specific verband resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_oint_config, so it misses the top score but remains clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to call it after create_robot and to use it to understand the robot's kinematic structure, giving a clear context for use. It doesn't mention exclusions or recommend an alternative tool for similar queries, so it's not a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.